Prosecutor calls for review of Brighton teen sex offender sentence

Livingston County Prosecutor William Vailliencourt said he plans to ask for a review of on the outcome of a case of a Brighton Township teen originally charged with 31 felonies, including 20 counts of sexual assault.(Photo: File)

Livingston County Prosecutor William Vailliencourt said he plans to ask for a review of the outcome of a case of a Brighton Township teen originally charged with 31 felonies, including 20 counts of sexual assault.

Members of the community expressed disbelief and anger on numerous social media posts after the teen was ordered Oct. 19 to spend 45 days in a juvenile facility before returning home for probation services. These services could include an outpatient sex offender rehabilitation program.

The 45 days was recommended, a probation officer said at the hearing, because the boy experienced a difficult time in detention for two weeks preceding the hearing, and needed a period of stabilization before returning home.

Vailliencourt wrote on his Facebook page that he appreciated and shared the community outrage.

“Unfortunately, contrary to what many believe, a prosecutor cannot force a judge to impose a specific sentence,” Vailliencourt wrote. “Sentencing is the exclusive job of the court.

Vailliencourt said his office would file a motion to have the sentence "reviewed by a different judge" but noted that while the judge would have discretion to change or modify what has previously been ordered, the judge also has the discretion not to do so.

Prosecutors originally charged the boy, 16, with 13 counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct, seven counts of second-degree criminal sexual conduct, home invasion and gross indecency and nine counts of possession of child sexually abusive material, all felonies, among other charges in connection with three reported victims, two then-12-year-old girls and one 13-year-old girl.

On Oct. 6, in a plea agreement worked out between his attorney and prosecutors, the boy pleaded guilty to one count of first-degree criminal sexual conduct, one count of accosting a minor for immoral purposes and four counts of possession of child sexually explicit material.

The plea agreement stipulated the boy become a ward of the state and go to a residential treatment facility for sex offenders.

The court is not obligated to comply with agreements between the prosecutor and defense attorney.

"In this case, the juvenile pled to one of the most serious charges and the court had the ultimate authority to impose the sentence we requested," he said. "We offered our recommendation, but we can't make the judge follow it. For us and the victims, the benefit of this plea is that it gave the court the authority to impose the sentence we asked for — the same it could have imposed had there been a jury trial — but we spared all the young girls the unnecessary trauma of testifying at trial."

Because he was charged in juvenile court, the Livingston Daily is not naming the boy.

Last week’s disposition, the formal term for a sentence in juvenile court, was handed down by Livingston County Juvenile Court Referee Chelsea Thomason. She deviated from the agreement after hearing arguments from the boy's attorney, Edwin Literski.

A message was left seeing comment from Thomason.

Literski said two separate sex offender risk assessments advised against residential placement. The boy's probation officer also recommended against the placement.

Assistant Livingston County Prosecutor Marilyn Bradford said the evaluations were not sufficient for making a determination about placement and asked for a full psychological evaluation, but Thomason said the juvenile court emphasizes rehabilitation and the “least restrictive” approach when differences of opinion exist.

Residential placement, she said, is used only as a last resort.

"In this case, the defendant pled to the highest charge under the law — first degree criminal sexual conduct," Vailliencourt said. "In the juvenile system, where there is an adjudication…for any kind of an offense, the court has complete authority over the range of sentence it imposes."

"I am frequently frustrated by some of the sentences I see imposed by judges," Vailliencourt wrote. "I can give the judge the tools to do the right thing, but I can't force the judge to impose a sentence that they don't want to."

Contact reporter Laura Colvin at 517-552-2848 or lcolvin@livingstondaily.com or follow her on Twitter: @LauraColvin22